Comment
on "Education Needs to Change as Fast as Technology," by Zack Sims.
Posted at

Mr. Sims
hasn't done his homework. He points out that the "US is
ranked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S.
is 31st in math achievement, 24th in science, and 21st in reading." But a
number of studies have shown that when we control for the effect of poverty,
our students rank near the top of the world.

Mr. Sims also has a great deal of
faith in flipped classrooms. But there is no research supporting this
faith.This technology is being pushed on
classrooms without proper research.

The problem is not a lack of technology. The problem is poverty. The US
child poverty rate is an inexcusable 24%.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Sent to the Japan Times, May 23, 2014Contrary to the impression given by The Japan Times's free commercial for Duolingo ("Duolingo chief shakes up language learning," May 23), there is no clear evidence that Duolinguo is effective in teaching foreign languages. The only research study done assessing the impact of Duolingo, which was funded by Duolingo, did not produce strong results: Forty-four percent of the subjects, mostly college graduates and many with advanced degrees, did not finish the 22-hour course and 25% of the subjects completed eight hours or less, with one subject doing only two hours. In contrast, there are hundreds of published papers in respected scientific journals demonstrating what really does work in teaching foreign languages, and unlike Duolingo, these approaches do not require a computer. For example, studies show that methods based on story telling and easy reading result in profound gains for beginners in English and other languages. For intermediate students, self-selected pleasure reading has been shown to be more effective than traditional methods for developing vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and writing style. Also, reading can be so pleasant that students are often eager to do it on their own. Many of these studies have been done with those acquiring English as a second language in Japan, and they have been published in scholarly journals all over the world. I hope that the Japan Times, its readers, and Duolingo CEO Luis von Ahn (who has no background in language education research), will study the work of some of the prominent scholars in Japan who have done quality research in this area, including Profs. Beniko Mason, David Beglar, and Atsuko Takase. Stephen KrashenSome Sources: Mason, B.,Vanata, M., Jander, K., Borsch, R., and Krashen, S. 2009. The effects and efficiency of hearing stories on vocabulary acquisition by students of German as a second foreign language in Japan. The Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1-14.Mason, B. 2011. Impressive gains on the TOEIC after one year of comprehensible input, with no output or grammar study. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 7(1). (ijflt.com)Krashen, S. 2014. Does Duolingo "trump" university-level language learning? International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 9(1):13-15.Vesselinov, R. and Grego, J. 2012. Duolingo effectiveness study. Final Report. static.duolingo.com/s3/DuolingoReport_Final.pdf

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Quite
a few people who reacted to my post (see below) thought it was real. It wasn't.
It was an attempt at satire. Part of its failure was my fault, for not making
it clear that it was satire. And part was the situation we are now living in, a
situation so bizarre that this kind of announcement is believable. The reaction
confirms Alfie Kohn's statement: In education, satire is now obsolete.

The
post was inspired by the news that 69% of Californians said they liked the
Common Core standards after hearing a brief statement about them. The statement
said only that they "are designed to ensure that students graduating from
high school have the knowledge and skills they need to enter college programs
or the workforce." I'm surprised anybody would object.

I
owe more than a hat-tip to Andy Borowitz, who writes amazing political satire.
Follow him on borowitzreport.com.

OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR THE COMMON CORE!!!

There is now no doubt: Americans overwhelmingly support
the common core. In a poll organized by the Pearson Publishing Company, 96%
strongly agreed with the statement, "Schools should teach important
things." By a wide margin, those surveyed also agreed that "teachers
should help students learn stuff."

Education Secretary Arne Duncan announed that
"This poll is a real-game changer. Despite the complaints of nay-sayers,
the public has finally got the message about the common core."

In a separate poll carried out among staff members of
the US Department of Education, 92% demonstrated their familiarity with
learning theory, responding that they recognized the name "Piaget."
Of those who did, however, 82% associated the name with a watch company.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

There is now no doubt: Americans overwhelmingly
support the common core. In a poll organized by the Pearson Publishing Company,
96% strongly agreed with the statement, "Schools should teach important
things." By a wide margin, those surveyed also agreed that "teachers
should help students learn stuff."

Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced that
"This poll is a real-game changer. Despite the complaints of nay-sayers,
the public has finally got the message about the common core."

In a separate poll carried out among staff members of
the US Department of Education, 92% demonstrated their familiarity with
learning theory, responding that they recognized the name "Piaget."
Of those who did, however, 82% associated the name with a watch company.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

I think the common core math standards are lousy on purpose, made lousy so that parents will complain ("2+2=What? Parents rail against Common Core math," May 15).The common core architects will then make some adjustments, enough to stop the most vigorous complaints. Many complainers will then be satisfied and the public will be impressed with how open-minded the common core directors are. But the common core itself will remain unchallenged. The common core was designed by non-educators, has no research supporting it, and will be enforced by more testing than we have ever seen on this planet. It will also cost billions, and the plan to test all students online ensures massive and increasing technology expenditures forever.Parents are right to protest the math standards, but should not forget what the real problem is.

Stephen Krashen

original article http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2023611545_apxcommoncorecomplicatedmath.html?syndication=rss

Sunday, May 11, 2014

"Lessons from the world's best public school" (May 9) considers Shanghai to be the "world's best education system" (p. 30), because Shanghai's scores on international tests such as the PISA are at the top of the world. As Newsweek notes, however, Shanghai is "one of China's richest cities" (p. 31) and the children of migrant workers are excluded from their public schools.

In contrast, American students' PISA scores are unspectacular. But children are not excluded from school in the US, and American schools must deal with a very high rate of child poverty, 24%, the second highest among 34 advanced economic countries.

Any comparison of educational programs must consider the effect of poverty. Every study ever done has shown that poverty has a devastating effect on school performance. Poverty means, among other things, food deprivation, lack of health care, and lack of access to books.

When researchers control for the effect of poverty, American scores are among the best in the world. When we examine middle class American students in well-funded schools, their scores are close to Shanghai's and ahead of all other countries tested.

The current move in the US to become more like China in education, with more competition and more rigorous examinations, will do nothing to improve student achievement in the US. The problem is poverty.

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/05/09/shanghai-high-confidential-249224.html

I agree that the
debate about the common core must be rooted in the facts, and that the
"propoganda machine on the right" has "polluted the debate"
with outrageous accusations. There are, however, serious and legitimate arguments
against the common core.

The stated reason for
the common core is the supposedly poor performance of American students.
Butwhen researchers control for the effect of poverty, American
students' international test scores are at the top of the world.Ouroverall scores are unspectacular (but not terrible) because we have so
much child poverty, 24%, the second highest among all economically advanced
countries.

Poverty means poor diet, inadequate
health care, and little or no access to books. All of these have devastating
effects on school performance.The best
teaching has little effect when children are hungry, ill and have nothing to
read.

The common core not only ignores the
real problem; it does nothing to protect children from the effects of poverty.
It only offers us a an extremely expensive plan with no basis in the research:
There is no research supporting "tough" standards or nonstop testing.
Also, studies show that increasing testing does not improve school achievement.

Friday, May 9, 2014

The book popularity data from "What are kids reading? Books like 'Hunger Games,' but classics, too," (May 8) comes from reading done in preparation for tests, not reading for pleasure.

The data comes from reading done as part of the Accelerated Reader (AR) program. AR sells tests that students take after reading a book. Students are awarded points depending on how many questions they get right, and can exchange the points for prizes. Thus, AR readers are reading in order to score points on AR tests, and try to remember details that might be on the test, but that are often not relevant to the story (e.g. "What is the name of the talking parrot?" in Dr. Dolittle).

Young readers might be using different criteria in reading for points as contrasted with reading for pleasure.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/2014/0508/What-are-kids-reading-Books-like-Hunger-Games-but-classics-too

Thursday, May 8, 2014

It is a premature to give the "new academic standards" of the common core credit for Connecticut's good performance on the 12th grade NAEP reading test ("State Students Excel On 'Nation's Report Card'," May 7).

First, the improvement was not uniform: Grade 8 scores increased less than grade 12 scores, and grade 4 scores stayed the same as they were in 2009. The gap between high poverty (eligible for free and reduced lunch) and low poverty students remained nearly the same as it was in 2009.

Second, to show that the common core is the factor, we would have to compare states that are equivalent in all ways except implementation of the common core. This has not been done.

Thus far, no research has shown that tough standards and increased testing increase NAEP scores. Research has shown, however, that low levels of poverty and access to school and public libraries are associated with higher NAEP scores.

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-naep-scores-0508-20140507,0,3768766.story?track=rss

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

The headline for "Survey: More Educators Think 'Just the Right Amount' of Time Is Spent on Testing" is deceptive.
Yes, a slightly smaller percentage of teachers think there is too much time taken for testing, and a slightly larger percentage think there is "just enough"time taken for testing compared to two years ago, but 52% of teachers still think there is too much time preparing for and taking tests and 53% think students spend too much time in test taking and preparation.
Note that the question asked was about both "preparing for and taking assessments." In a sidebar, the original report notes that in 2013, 70 percent of teachers and 55 percent of district administrators said that "the focus on state accountability tests takes too much time away from learning" (p. 9). No data from two years ago was reported. Ed Week did not report this figure.
Only a tiny percentage thought that not enough time was dedicated to test preparation and administration. I am sure that staff members of the US Department of Education are in agreement with this small group: As the standards expand to more subject matter areas, we can, of course, expect more testing. (I have documented this in S. Krashen, 2012, “How Much Testing?” Diane Ravitch’s Blog (July 25). <http://dianeravitch.net/?s=how+much+testing> (accessed October 13, 2013).
Another important result: Students said they value teacher-made tests far more than they value standardized tests: 54% thought that teacher-made tests helped them understand what they learned, but only 21% felt that way about "state accountability tests."
Also not reported in the Ed Week article: 92% of girls and 87% of boys said that they thought that the teacher "cares about my learning" and 92% of girls and 85% of boys said that they "learn a lot in school."

Monday, May 5, 2014

Ed Week cheerfully reports field-tests for Smarter Balanced and PARCC tests are going jus' fine:"Early Reports Suggest Few Field-Testing Snags"
[http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/05/06/30fieldtest_ep.h33.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1]
I posted this comment:
This "field-testing" seems to be mostly about technical aspects of implementation. I get the impression that analysis of the test items will be done later. But there is no indication that the big questions will even be asked: Is all this testing, the largest investment in testing ever made, worth it? Will it improve student achievement?

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Diane Ravitch recently observed that there has been a
big hurry to implement the Common Core. In 2009, she urged the authors of the
Common Core to field test it before implementation, advice they did not follow.
Again in 2010, at the White House, she urged field testing, but officials
"quickly dismissed the idea. They were in a hurry. They
wanted Common Core to be rolled out as quickly as possible, without checking
out how it works in real classrooms with real teachers and real children."
(http://dianeravitch.net/2014/05/02/my-reply-to-alexander-nazaryan-of-newsweek/)

At about the same time, the US Department of
Education, in their National Education Technology plan, was in a big hurry to
introduce new technology into the schools. They argued that this must be done
immediately, because of the "the
pressing need to transform American education ...",even if this means doing it imperfectly:
Repairs can be done later: "...
we do not have the luxury of time: We must act now and commit to fine-tuning
and midcourse corrections as we go."In other words, there will be no attempt to see there is any evidence that
new technology could, in fact, "transform American education." (Transforming Education: Learning Powered by
Technology. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 Quotes here are from the Excutive
Summary.)

I
think there are two "pressing needs" in education. One is to protect
America's children from the effects of poverty. The other is to stop the admittedly unvalidated
Common Core, delivered through admittedly incompletely vetted technology.

Friday, May 2, 2014

Published in the Washington Post, May 6, 2014, with the title: Maryland's new math requirement doesn't add up.Maryland will now require all high school students to take four years of math ("Maryland to require math for all years of high school; universities also adjust rules," May 2).The fourth year, moreover, must be "non-trivial," such as algebra 2, trigonometry, pre-calculus, calculus, statistics and college algebra. This is in order to prevent students from "getting rusty" and not being prepared for college.

But not all students go to college. And of those who do, few select majors that require this much math and few jobs require this much math. Michael Handel of Northeastern University in his "Profile of US Jobs" reported that only 22% of all workers use math beyond fractions, decimals and percentages, and of those who do, most only only simple algebra.

Requiring four years of math makes about as much sense as requiring four years of Latin.

FINAL SENTENCE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PUBLISHED VERSION (I should point out that I love math. I took AP calculus in high school, and advanced calculus and differential equations in college. But I took these courses as electives.)

Source: Handel, M. 2010. What do people do at work? Available at www.northeastern.edu/socant/wp-content/.../STAMP_OECD2a_edit2.doc‎ See also: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/heres-how-little-math-americans-actually-use-at-work/275260/

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Alexander Nazaryan ("Sorry,
Louis C.K., but You’re Wrong About Common Core," May 1) says our schools need the
increased "rigor" of the common core because they are so bad: "China,
South Korea and Germany are leaving us in the chalk dust, most Americans can
barely find America on the map ...".

Not so.When researchers control for the effect of
poverty, American students' international test scores are at the top of the
world.Our overall scores are unspectacular (but not
terrible) because we have so much child poverty, 24%, the second highest among
all economically advanced countries.

Poverty means poor diet, inadequate
health care, and little or no access to books. All of these have devastating
effects on school performance. The best
teaching has little effect when children are hungry, ill and have nothing to
read.

The common core not only ignores the
real problem, but also offers us a plan with no basis in the research: There is
no research supporting "tough" standards, no research that justifies
the bad math homework Louis C.K.'s children had to deal with. Also, studies
show that increasing testing does not improve school achievement.